Any HOF respect for 1980-2000?

[cavalier1968]

Considering PEDS, I would like some opinions on players whose total numbers fall short in todays enhanced baseball world. Perhaps they should be looked at further.

Will Clark
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Darrell Evans
Lance Parrish
Mark Grace
Bill Madlock


Cav :highfive:

[iPod]

If they weren't good enough to get in before the steroid scandal erupted, what precisely makes them good enough now? I'm struggling to understand how it's even remotely relevant.

[frehleyscomet]

Considering PEDS, I would like some opinions on players whose total numbers fall short in todays enhanced baseball world. Perhaps they should be looked at further.

Will Clark
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Darrell Evans
Lance Parrish
Mark Grace
Bill Madlock


Cav :highfive:

In the 80's it was looking like for sure Bill Madlock was going to be a lock for the HOF with all of the batting titles he won. I dont remember if he got hurt later or what?

[Fuzzy Bear]

In the 80's it was looking like for sure Bill Madlock was going to be a lock for the HOF with all of the batting titles he won. I dont remember if he got hurt later or what?

The development of sabermetrics helped kill Madlock's chances. Had Madlock played 20 years earlier, his 4 batting titles would probably have put him in the HOF.

Madlock's chances were also hurt because he played in the same era as two of the three greatest third basemen ever (Brett and Schmidt, in reverse order). Had Madlock been the big star of the era at third base, instead of being in the shadow of Brett and Schmidt, he may well have eked out the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Considering PEDS, I would like some opinions on players whose total numbers fall short in todays enhanced baseball world. Perhaps they should be looked at further.

Will Clark
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Darrell Evans
Lance Parrish
Mark Grace
Bill Madlock


Cav :highfive:

Parrish, Clark, and Hernandez have cases; the others really do not.

I see where this thread is aimed; it's about rewriting the history of baseball, with the "roiders" written out. I'm not surprised, though. It's aimed at the inaccurate writing of baseball history out of misplaced indignation over PEDs.

The argument goes like this: The PED users were all "cheaters". So let's discard their careers, and elevate to their positions of stardom the best players who weren't "cheaters". Let's let the second tier of stars who didn't "cheat" take the place of Bonds, McGwire, et al in the HOF, at Oldtimers Day, etc. The people who take this tack are bound and determined to write the 'roiders out of the history of baseball. (Of course, no roiding has to be actually proved; innuendo and sudden jumps in power stats will suffice in the place of proof.)

That certain players used PEDs does not, in any way, elevate the careers of those who didn't use PEDs. PEDs were widely used to the point where they were a condition of the era. Players used them openly, and players who did not use them made that choice out of practicality; not out of virtue.

Let's stop the witch hunts, hysteria, ranting, raving, etc., and let's start viewing PEDs as a condition of the time. As something whose introduction into the game was known of and condoned by MLB management. Let's stop the Congressional investigations; they are a sanctimonious diversion from the real national problems that Congress is supposed to be attending to. Let's implement a real testing program, and let's get back to honoring the players who were the best of their era. That means Bonds, Clemens, etc. Not second-rank stars who haven't been implicated yet.

What, by the way, will happen if we vote Will Clark into the HOF as the best "non-roider" only to find out later that he used PEDs after all? Talk about the "buyer's remorse" that will occur if HOF selections are made on that basis.

[Brad Harris]

Clark and Evans belong. Strong argument for Parrish if you're interested in electing the top 20 at each position. Hernandez I've voted for in the past though I'm more skeptical now. The rest are cannon fodder.

The steroids era has absolutely nothing to do with the qualifications of any of the aforementioned players. They were worthy of consideration (or not) with or without the gaudy numbers of the past decade.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As a huge Will Clark and someone who saw Clark play many times I still can't support his HoF candidacy. I think he falls just short. I saw Clark up close in his Giants glory years. He was a BALLPLAYER. He hit 35 HRs in 1987 but I don't think he was really a true power hitter. He never approached 35 HR again. His '89 season was a monster.

.333/.407/.546, 175 OPS+, 196 H, 23 HR, 111 RBI, 38 doubles, 9 triples

Today this season doesn't look that impressive but Clark did play in candlestick Part and the '89 National League was a stronger pitcher's league. Clark was just 25 years old and at this point in his career it looked like a certainty that his '89 season was the beginning of a great 7-8 year run for Clark. But it never happened. His '90 season was a down year for Clark with his OPS+ dropping 50 points. He did rebound to have a nice '91 season. But his '91 season was his last 150 OPS+ season of his career. I know he batting elbow problems as he got older. Just when everyone one else were hitting gobbs of HRs Clark's power waned. From '92-'97 Clark hit between 12-16 HRs. Even his '98 season when he hit .305/.384/.507, 23 HR, 102 RBI was nothing special. Because of the HRs being hit by then he ended up with just a 126 OPS+ for the season. So, basically Clark peaked in '89 and had a long slow decline after that. If he would have had more '89 type seasons his HoF chances would have greatly improved.

[Paul Wendt]

If they weren't good enough to get in before the steroid scandal erupted, what precisely makes them good enough now? I'm struggling to understand how it's even remotely relevant.

(Beside for rewriting history without roiders as someone else says)
the argument would be that these players were misevaluated because by the time they were eligible --10-20 years after their peaks and 6-10 years after they were any good on the field-- the batting boom cast a shadow over their records.

The argument wouldn't pertain to Parrish and Madlock but maybe to all the others, who might be evaluated mainly on big batting numbers; who might be compared mainly to the LF/RF/1B/DH of the Lots of Little Divisions Era.

The same argument would pertain to Dave Concepcion a decade earlier, who is better supported by the voters but not well-supported. He is still on the ballot now, 30 years after his peak. Cal Ripken was a ten-year veteran by the time he was eligible, Robin Yount and Alan Trammell had done 1982 and 1987 (and lots more batting above the 1972/77 shortstop level). So he was misevaluated.

The valid argument wouldn't be about PEDs but about timelags, short memories, inevitable reliance on playing statistics and on benchmarks

[Brad Harris]

(Beside for rewriting history without roiders as someone else says)
the argument would be that these players were misevaluated because by the time they were eligible --10-20 years after their peaks and 6-10 years after they were any good on the field-- the batting boom cast a shadow over their records.
The inverse of which would be that Mike Mussina and Kevin Brown are getting screwed because they're being held to the standards of pitchers who starred in the 1970s and early '80s.

[nerfan]

I like Hernandez and Clark, but where is Alan Trammell? Biggest snub of the 1980's in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I like Hernandez and Clark, but where is Alan Trammell? Biggest snub of the 1980's in my opinion.

Trammell is a bigger HOF injustice than Ron Santo; possibly the biggest.

[cavalier1968]

Parrish, Clark, and Hernandez have cases; the others really do not.

I see where this thread is aimed; it's about rewriting the history of baseball, with the "roiders" written out. I'm not surprised, though. It's aimed at the inaccurate writing of baseball history out of misplaced indignation over PEDs.

The argument goes like this: The PED users were all "cheaters". So let's discard their careers, and elevate to their positions of stardom the best players who weren't "cheaters". Let's let the second tier of stars who didn't "cheat" take the place of Bonds, McGwire, et al in the HOF, at Oldtimers Day, etc. The people who take this tack are bound and determined to write the 'roiders out of the history of baseball. (Of course, no roiding has to be actually proved; innuendo and sudden jumps in power stats will suffice in the place of proof.)

That certain players used PEDs does not, in any way, elevate the careers of those who didn't use PEDs. PEDs were widely used to the point where they were a condition of the era. Players used them openly, and players who did not use them made that choice out of practicality; not out of virtue.

Let's stop the witch hunts, hysteria, ranting, raving, etc., and let's start viewing PEDs as a condition of the time. As something whose introduction into the game was known of and condoned by MLB management. Let's stop the Congressional investigations; they are a sanctimonious diversion from the real national problems that Congress is supposed to be attending to. Let's implement a real testing program, and let's get back to honoring the players who were the best of their era. That means Bonds, Clemens, etc. Not second-rank stars who haven't been implicated yet.

What, by the way, will happen if we vote Will Clark into the HOF as the best "non-roider" only to find out later that he used PEDs after all? Talk about the "buyer's remorse" that will occur if HOF selections are made on that basis.

Fuzzy,

My point was that the numbers of the late 90's would skew the view of some voters. For example, many HOFers are not voted in their first few years of eligibility. Then perhaps, many voters would compare stats from different times, making player numbers in the 80's and early 90's look meek in comparison.

Cav

[Chickazoola]

The inverse of which would be that Mike Mussina and Kevin Brown are getting screwed because they're being held to the standards of pitchers who starred in the 1970s and early '80s.

Mussina's not even retired yet, and Brown's not yet eligible. I don't see how they are getting screwed.